Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (45 users) | |
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 24 2012 10:13. Posts 14 | Profile # |
This is a 2v2 map I made to try and help the "2's are rush fest" experience on the ladder. This is my first map and I know its ugly as hell and the symmetry is not perfect but I wanted to show my idea of what a macro 2's map could possibly look like.
+ Show Spoiler +
Just to reiterate, this is my first map and I am far from an artist. I do think the map is playable but I only wanted to show my idea of a possible 2v2 map set up for other map makers.
The thirds for both players are viable and the naturals are almost given, similar to 1v1, with a simple wall off. The ramps are smaller than all the ladder maps in the current map pool and each player has 5 possible minerals patches (excluding the main). There are no gold bases... (I just dont see the point)
Feedback is greatly appreciated and if another fellow map maker could run with my idea but pretty the map up I would love to see the final result.
Thanks,
rnmdMusliMLast edit: 2012-05-24 14:49:17 |
|
|
| TheFish7 United States. May 24 2012 14:29. Posts 1217 | Profile # | |
| |
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 24 2012 15:00. Posts 14 | Profile # |
While I don't think it a bad thing that a game could possibly progress into a 20 base game per side, I don't think it "easy" to take the 3 patches at the top, nor the ones that are to the left or right of the naturals. The rush distance is 10 seconds longer than daybreak so I didn't think that the size was that bad. If a solo map is 45 in-game seconds for rush distance, I didn't think that a 2v2 rush distance being 55 seconds was too bad.
All in all, I suppose removing 6 patches in total would not be too bad. And making a smaller map, say, the exact same pixel size as daybreak, couldn't hurt. Its my first map though and I really just want a map maker like IronSC to play with this idea that I had, that is to say, "[adapt] a standard base progression to 2v2". I have a feeling if he were to just remake my map and remove 6 patches (3 from each side) and maybe decrease the size, we could see the best 2v2 map ever made. It seems like it would work wonders for helping 2v2 evolve nicely. Just as 1v1 evolved nicely when the "steppes of war" maps were removed.
Thanks for the feedback fish. I really do appreciate it. If you are a map maker yourself try out my idea. Throw up a similar map on this thread and lets see what you come up with. I'm pretty sure it will look and play better than my map. ^^
Thanks again,
rndmMusliM
Edit, I used the liquid uploader.. that thing worked wonders.Last edit: 2012-05-24 15:00:44 |
|
|
| TheFish7 United States. May 25 2012 03:28. Posts 1217 | Profile # |
I had posted this is the competitive 2v2 maps thread, but since you asked, here is my current WIP (its been neglected since the release of diablo 3) I'm also not really happy with the proportionality and I think it will be too easy to pull armies out of position with the way the 3rd bases are set up at the moment.
+ Show Spoiler +
You can also check out my other 2v2 map that I published a while back
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=335489
I don't think the new WIP is better than this one yet, so it remains unfinished until I can tweak it. My other idea was to re-do War Zone - I always found that map fun but stupidly easy to rush on |
| |
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 25 2012 13:28. Posts 14 | Profile # |
| Yea, I saw both of those. But i meant, try out my idea of having a standard solo lay out..see what you come up with. |
|
|
| IronManSC United States. May 25 2012 14:28. Posts 1660 | Profile # | |
| | ESV Map Maker. || twitter: @ESVironManSC || Author of Ohana, Khalis, Ravage, Khaydaria, Spring |
|
|
| NewSunshine United States. May 25 2012 14:36. Posts 1021 | Profile # |
On May 25 2012 14:28 IronManSC wrote:
Why is this called LE?
Cuz it's a ladder map, duh.
Joking aside, it probably could be, the 2's ladder pool is awful.
Actually, that was wrong, I wasn't done joking. Get ready for the punch line...
The 2v2 ladder pool.
Nice enough first map though, icwutudidthar with the map name/layout. :D |
| | [ESV mapmaking team member] [Former DF map team founder] [@ESVNewSunshine] |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 26 2012 08:21. Posts 14 | Profile # |
| Haha, I named it LE only because Daybreak had LE at the end of it. And I pretty much just ripped off the name and made a 2v2 Daybreak pretty much. I didnt want to make an original map for my first map and the only reason why I made this map was to get that idea out there. That is, have the 2's maps work just like the solo maps but a little bigger and about double the mineral patches. |
|
|
| FlaShFTW United States. May 26 2012 12:05. Posts 4961 | Profile Blog # | |
| | Never Surrender. Never GG. Always Fighting. BW4LYF. Woo Jung Ho Never Forget. |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 27 2012 06:54. Posts 14 | Profile # |
| Is that a good thing? I am going to start working on my second map pretty soon. Ill try and make an original one and see how it goes. Or maybe I should just keep taking the really good balanced 1v1 maps and turning them into 2v2 maps. That actually might be better with regards to balances. I picked daybreak because it is looking to be the most balanced map in GSL regarding win loss ratio. Maybe start with entombed maybe? Or perhaps ohana? |
|
|
| Chargelot May 27 2012 07:46. Posts 2274 | Profile Blog # |
Unfortunately you have too much of the "equality first!" stuff going on here. The true test of 2v2 is for a team to manage how they expand. When you have 2 bases at each expansion, it becomes literally effortless. You essentially have a 1v1 mashed together with another 1v1.
The single center expansion would never be taken, ever. Too many better, safer options. It's so open that it doesn't matter what you have, you can't defend it against two encroaching armies unless you use all of your two armies for it, which would of course leave every other expansion completely undefended.
Remember, 2v2 maps aren't about being fair to both players on each team. It's about making the players cooperate. They need a reason to be in communication beyond "I go 11-11 mass marines you go 7rr GG".
Your goal is to make the game less of a "rush fest", but providing this many double base expansions only means you're allowing your players the opportunity to be thoughtless. I would still have single expansion bases, but make them a little more defensible.
At the same time, double expo bases are actually rather "imbalanced" when used by dual-terran. One Planetary fortress can be difficult to handle. Two IS difficult. If they build a third between them (defensive Planetary Fortress. It's a strategy!), GG.Last edit: 2012-05-27 07:50:53 |
| | if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; } |
|
|
| TBone- May 27 2012 12:28. Posts 1749 | Profile Blog # |
| Wait, a 2v2 map where each player gets an expansion?!? And both players get thirds? Please get hired by blizzard ^^ |
| | I am a: Brood war fan, high level Tribes Ascend player, Web/graphic designer, and lover of competitive gaming. Proleague is best league. Symtex in Dota 2/sc2/Tribes |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 27 2012 16:42. Posts 14 | Profile # |
Ill start but saying that I take criticism well but not all criticism is good. With that said, the following comes.
Unfortunately you have too much of the "equality first!" stuff going on here. The true test of 2v2 is for a team to manage how they expand. When you have 2 bases at each expansion, it becomes literally effortless.
I would disagree with your absolute statement of what 2v2's "test" is. 2v2 is not a defined term with regards to how it is played. I'm not sure if you are saying that this is the way YOU think the "true test" of 2v2 is or whether you actually think your statement is absolute. Furthermore, to refute the 2 bases being effortless to take, most every map in the solo pool has an "effortless" natural that is almost a given. I'm not saying that 1 base play is not seen but now that the game is more figured out you rarely see 1 base play. Thus, I ask, why should 2v2 be any different?
Remember, 2v2 maps aren't about being fair to both players on each team. It's about making the players cooperate. They need a reason to be in communication beyond "I go 11-11 mass marines you go 7rr GG".
Again, I ask you whether this is just what YOU think 2v2's are "about" or whether you actually think your statement is an absolute regarding why 2v2 exists. A link to where you get your definitions would suffice perhaps. Furthermore, this map, and I am not saying this is a ladder worthy map but that the style the map is set up as is better than the current maps in the map pool, actually is anti "I go 11-11 rins you go roach rush" These strategies would be non existent if this map were the only map in the pool at the moment. And to add, this map would call for MORE communication because there would be more bases, more resource and thus, more technology paths opened. More space to defend calls for a better understanding as to where ones position will be at its most efficient.
but providing this many double base expansions only means you're allowing your players the opportunity to be thoughtless..."imbalanced"...Two [Planetary Fortresses ARE] difficult.
Just to be precise and to the point, I flat out disagree with this statement. How can enabling more resource, opening more technology, and making the maps a bit larger, call for "thoughtless[ness]"? I do not quite follow your logic here. Regarding the abuse of Planetary Fortress, I would have to see a game where Terran actually did that.(a replay perhaps) I have been high masters in 2v2 for 6 seasons and have never seen a Terran PF and it be abusive. And I actually mean "never".
Again, to reiterate what I started with, I take criticism well but everything you said makes no sense to me.
Thanks,
rndmMusliM |
|
|
| AdrianHealey Belgium. May 27 2012 17:20. Posts 480 | Profile # |
| I agree with rndmMuslim his assessments. The big bane of current 2v2 map pool is the sheer hardness of taking an expansion. |
| |
|
| Sated England. May 27 2012 18:03. Posts 3427 | Profile Blog # |
On May 27 2012 07:46 Chargelot wrote:
Unfortunately you have too much of the "equality first!" stuff going on here. The true test of 2v2 is for a team to manage how they expand. When you have 2 bases at each expansion, it becomes literally effortless. You essentially have a 1v1 mashed together with another 1v1.
The single center expansion would never be taken, ever. Too many better, safer options. It's so open that it doesn't matter what you have, you can't defend it against two encroaching armies unless you use all of your two armies for it, which would of course leave every other expansion completely undefended.
Remember, 2v2 maps aren't about being fair to both players on each team. It's about making the players cooperate. They need a reason to be in communication beyond "I go 11-11 mass marines you go 7rr GG".
Your goal is to make the game less of a "rush fest", but providing this many double base expansions only means you're allowing your players the opportunity to be thoughtless. I would still have single expansion bases, but make them a little more defensible.
At the same time, double expo bases are actually rather "imbalanced" when used by dual-terran. One Planetary fortress can be difficult to handle. Two IS difficult. If they build a third between them (defensive Planetary Fortress. It's a strategy!), GG.
1) 2v2 is only about that because the maps are awful. If the maps weren't awful then we'd see more fast-expansion play in 2s, which would lead to a more diverse set of strategies being developed.
2) There's no reason not to have a hard to take base somewhere on the map. It may well only be taken after every other base is taken, but then it becomes the difference between being starved out and not being starved out.
3) The players still need to communicate. It doesn't matter whether or not they communicate with a 1base army or a 2base army, they're going to have to properly co-ordinate their attacks and defences in order to win. I don't see how having to co-ordinate a larger army (more bases) leads to less co-operation.
4) Implying that 2base play is thoughtless. Do you play 1s? There is a lot of thought that goes into when you get upgrades, tech, more structures etc.
EDIT:
5) Who the hell puts a PF at their natural? And then at their third? If someone does that, just out-macro the crap out of them because they don't have enough MULEs.Last edit: 2012-05-27 18:03:46 |
| | EU Masters Protoss Playing For Team SC2Improve ~ www.sc2improve.org ~ "I'd rather play a strategy that is worse but that I feel confident in than play the better strategy not really feeling it and not being 100% behind it" - Grubby | |
|
|
| AltOptimus Netherlands. May 27 2012 18:35. Posts 115 | Profile # |
| i wish blizzard would publish maps like this when im trying to have fun in 1/2 team games to warm up my hands for 1v1 and all i get is double 6 pool. i really like this map good job! |
| | I think you're already on active duty |
|
|
| Chargelot May 27 2012 19:38. Posts 2274 | Profile Blog # |
On May 27 2012 16:42 -rndmMusliM- wrote:Ill start but saying that I take criticism well but not all criticism is good. With that said, the following comes.
Show nested quote +Unfortunately you have too much of the "equality first!" stuff going on here. The true test of 2v2 is for a team to manage how they expand. When you have 2 bases at each expansion, it becomes literally effortless.
I would disagree with your absolute statement of what 2v2's "test" is. 2v2 is not a defined term with regards to how it is played. I'm not sure if you are saying that this is the way YOU think the "true test" of 2v2 is or whether you actually think your statement is absolute. Furthermore, to refute the 2 bases being effortless to take, most every map in the solo pool has an "effortless" natural that is almost a given. I'm not saying that 1 base play is not seen but now that the game is more figured out you rarely see 1 base play. Thus, I ask, why should 2v2 be any different?
Show nested quote +Remember, 2v2 maps aren't about being fair to both players on each team. It's about making the players cooperate. They need a reason to be in communication beyond "I go 11-11 mass marines you go 7rr GG".
Again, I ask you whether this is just what YOU think 2v2's are "about" or whether you actually think your statement is an absolute regarding why 2v2 exists. A link to where you get your definitions would suffice perhaps. Furthermore, this map, and I am not saying this is a ladder worthy map but that the style the map is set up as is better than the current maps in the map pool, actually is anti "I go 11-11 rins you go roach rush" These strategies would be non existent if this map were the only map in the pool at the moment. And to add, this map would call for MORE communication because there would be more bases, more resource and thus, more technology paths opened. More space to defend calls for a better understanding as to where ones position will be at its most efficient.
Show nested quote +but providing this many double base expansions only means you're allowing your players the opportunity to be thoughtless..."imbalanced"...Two [Planetary Fortresses ARE] difficult.
Just to be precise and to the point, I flat out disagree with this statement. How can enabling more resource, opening more technology, and making the maps a bit larger, call for "thoughtless[ness]"? I do not quite follow your logic here. Regarding the abuse of Planetary Fortress, I would have to see a game where Terran actually did that.(a replay perhaps) I have been high masters in 2v2 for 6 seasons and have never seen a Terran PF and it be abusive. And I actually mean "never". Again, to reiterate what I started with, I take criticism well but everything you said makes no sense to me. Thanks, rndmMusliM
Allow me to explain what's going on in my mind. I think I came off as extremely crass and indeed thoughtless myself, but what I was thinking wasn't as simplex as I made it sound. (also I really wasn't talking about the natural at all. I don't understand why everyone became so fixated on the natural in my point. I never even said the word natural.)
This is Scorched Haven:
+ Show Spoiler +
I chose this map as an example because it's been around since beta, and everyone has played on it.
This is Scorched Haven when populated by two players, represented as Red and Yellow:
+ Show Spoiler +
This is Scorched Haven when the map has been populated to 3:3:6 by Red and Yellow, the Green Lines represent the, what I will dub, "Absolute Line of Defense":
+ Show Spoiler +
This Orange Line will be called the "Alert Line". If any enemy unit moves into or out of the Alert Line, you definitely want to know about it. This area should be heavily visible, with the players making good use of whatever means they have available, such as overlord spread, creep spread, XNT, or even Sensor Towers. This line is for defensive purposes, not offensive purposes.
+ Show Spoiler +
This is a "my base your base" breakdown. It's just a very generalize who owns what land bordering,
+ Show Spoiler +
These white lines represent the lines of defensive motion. If I wanted to defend any of my bases, my units would generally move along these lines. These are the lines if Red and Yellow were each in different 1v1s on this map.
+ Show Spoiler +
This white circle represents the general "staging area". If I want to attack, I will push from this general direction so as to not leave my bases vulnerable. If I need to defend, units in this general area will have some degree of a linear block on every base, or will not be far from making that block.
+ Show Spoiler +
These are the defensive motion lines corrected for the fact that you need to defend all 6 bases with your two armies, instead of all 3 bases with your one army.
+ Show Spoiler +
but what if we expanded more like this?
+ Show Spoiler +
Well, my alert zone is a little more linear, and more covered by the XNT. However there is more surface area from our Absolute Lines of Defense.
+ Show Spoiler +
My base - Your Base is a lot more compact
+ Show Spoiler +
Our 1v1 styled Defensive Motion Lines are a lot more linear, and don't cross over empty space (doesn't ever leave "my base").
+ Show Spoiler +
And because of the lower ground disadvantage, our staging area grows in size.
+ Show Spoiler +
Arguably, as noted in the above two examples, the "staging area" becomes larger as the total team economy becomes larger. If gold bases were placed in safe defensible locations, this would no longer be true. But it stands to reason that gold bases will always be placed in a disadvantaged location to make the base a risk.
Note these examples as proof of my above point:
4v4, all 3 base:
+ Show Spoiler +
That is a massive circle.
1v1 3 base:
+ Show Spoiler +
That is a small circle.
The economy of 4 players on 3 bases is, logically, 400% better than 1 player on 3 bases. So too is their staging area about 4x larger than the 1v1 staging area, in terms of percentage of the map which the circles cover.
However, in this map, that is not the case. You move out as a pair, and in effect act exactly like a 1v1 player.
+ Show Spoiler +
Compare this to the Metalopolis picture above.
The map plays out exactly like a 1v1 does. You move constantly with your partner, never actually having to separate, as there are, as my vision dictates from the angle, three double bases including the natural, and a sort of triple base. It basically then becomes about unit composition ONLY. There isn't any team-based decision making involved in expanding. It goes down exactly as it should.
The macro plan boils down to "stay on our side of the map". There isn't a decision to be made like in Scorched Haven, or in other maps. It's just "expand".
"I have to 6 pool every game!" isn't a map problem. It's a player problem.Last edit: 2012-05-27 19:42:59 |
| | if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; } |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 27 2012 19:48. Posts 14 | Profile # |
^^ @altOptimus, Thanks man! I agree! This map kinda cancels the 6 pool strategies and would progress into a more macro oriented game. Indeed that would help you warm up a lot more than 1 base >.<
@sated, This is exactly my point. I am just not following his logic when it comes to "this map calls for thoughtless play". I made the map to progress just as a solo map would. I think it actually calls for MORE communication and diverse play.
@adrian, I agree, the current map pool is just atrocious.
I am not saying that my map is good enough to be a ladder map. God knows it is ugly as hell! But it is my first map and with time perhaps I can make one that is more appealing to the eye and has a better symmetry to it. OR MAYBE ^^ some of you pro map makers just remake this map or entombed or something and have it be a 2v2 map like i did with daybreak!
Thanks for the feedback guys, I really think if this gets out there blizzard just might help us 2's players have more diverse games beyond one base! |
|
|
| Chargelot May 27 2012 20:08. Posts 2274 | Profile Blog # |
On May 27 2012 19:48 -rndmMusliM- wrote:
@sated, This is exactly my point. I am just not following his logic when it comes to "this map calls for thoughtless play". I made the map to progress just as a solo map would. I think it actually calls for MORE communication and diverse play.
And what this does is completely obliterates the attacking players. Any and all aggression is shut down by the fact that 6 bases can be defended by filling the same space that you can defend 3 bases in 1v1. It essentially makes it twice as easy to defend double 3 base, because you aren't forced to spread, or fight over long distances. You fight in the same small section, and anyone walking into the always compact grouping of units will always die to it.
I can definitely see the game longevity increasing. But it doesn't necessarily result in this magically better game. Even this doesn't necessarily shut down the double 6 pool, although I have no idea what your distances are. 1 base play is just as strong even if getting to double 3 base is twice as easy.
I'm really not trying to come off as a jerk here. I don't mean to sound like I'm hell bent on proving you wrong or attacking you. I just don't think it accomplishes everything that it should.Last edit: 2012-05-27 20:09:03 |
| | if (post == "stupid") { document.getElementById('post').style.display = 'none'; } |
|
|
| -rndmMusliM- May 27 2012 20:27. Posts 14 | Profile # |
I am still not following your logic brother.
The map plays out exactly like a 1v1 does. You move constantly with your partner, never actually having to separate...It basically then becomes about unit composition ONLY
With this logic one would have to conclude that the current map pool for GSL is a map pool that calls of "thoughtless" play. The naturals are all easy to take. The thirds are relativity easy to take. This would mean that it then only comes down to "ONLY" unit composition. Meaning, in the GSL finals Squirtle had to think ONLY about unit composition. No upgrade timings, no positional play AT ALL, no economical thinking, ie., should he take his third after 3 gates or after the first gate? All of this you have officially thrown out the window simply because the naturals are too easy to take.
The macro plan boils down to "stay on our side of the map". There isn't a decision to be made like in Scorched Haven, or in other maps. It's just "expand".
Again, since this map plays JUST like daybreak, you are telling me that any game played on daybreak requires only for someone to "stay on their side of the map" and to "just expand"? Of course this is not true! Sc2 is hard for various reasons. Not only this single aspect of "make the right units and expand". There are drops to worry about tech switches to worry about hidden bases to worry about etc..
Your example of the white circle being bigger in the 3's 4's and 2's maps we see on the ladder is logical though. And the comparison between the meta map and the scorched and w/e that 4's map was was a good find. But that does not mean that your logic is correct. Sometimes when you make things too simple like that major flaws can arise. The argument that most everyone here is making is that just because you add two more players on the map does not mean that white circle needs to get any bigger. And if you MUST make it bigger it surely does not mean you make it as big as every map in the 2's map pool currently. For example, on daybreak a protoss can FFE and it counters the lings that zerg can make early on in order to allow him to obtain extra resources faster. On scorched haven a protoss can only dream about FFE. Or FE any way at that. ZT vs XX here the ZT team actually forces the XX team to play one base just because of the matchup. In solo you will never see that because the maps are more balanced. (except maps like steppes or war or dual site both removed now thank God!)
You move constantly with your partner, never actually having to separate
Here I can only refute you by providing a hypothetical situation. Suppose you have the natural and the third. Along with your teammate. Now suppose I come with my teammate and he hits your mains with Mutalisk while I drop your naturals with DT drops. A short while after lings and banes creep into your thirds. You are telling me that you would not have to "seperate" from your teammate here? You are telling me that this 3 pronged attack is simply "thoughtless"? While this is going on you are taking a hidden 4th and you PF it while dropping my teammates third(I didnt take my third because I went 2 base DT drop in order for his third to go up). All of this would result without any thinking involved at all? I do not think so sir! And I will be the first to say that on the current map pool this scenario that I just typed out will happen MAYBE 1 out of 20-30 games. And it only happens probably because 4 people are matched together and they are sick and tired of going 10 pool marauder or 10 pool mass helion one base!! |
|
|
| 1 2 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qfsa5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cav6A.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ejIGq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WaQDO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uqzXC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qj6ke.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6Hgp5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d8Yly.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KGcxq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mBZxu.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XVvNs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LXYUm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2CZKZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2bb2k.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HcFT3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XOfzC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zaDGl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XZb3j.jpg)
